1. Spinoza’s Proof for God’s existence God is by defined as, “a substance consisting of infinite attributes” in Proposition 11. Spinoza presents 3 Axioms based off his definitions to prove God’s existence. They are as follows: “(e)verything that exists, exists either in itself or in something else”, “(t)hat which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived though itself”, and “(t)hat from a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows”. He uses these, along with his Propositions and Definitions to argue God’s existence in four steps. Firstly, he establishes the uniqueness of a substance. Spinoza uses Definition 3 to prove Proposition 1, 2 and 4, by explaining that that an effect always follows a cause and if there is no cause, it is impossible for an effect to follow. If things do not have anything in common, we cannot use them to understand other things, making them separate. Spinoza further distinguishes the uniqueness of substances in Proposition 1 by using Definition 5 as proof to show that if conception of one thing does not involve the conception of the other thing, substances can be by nature prior to its affections. By proving these Prepositions, he concludes that two substances, which have different attributes and share no cause and effect, have nothing in …show more content…
In Proposition 7 and 8, Spinoza solidifies that this abstract idea of primary substance must exist. If the One Substance cannot be created by anything external, and we know things exist, then this One Substance must exist. If we assume that substances can be finite and infinite, then the One Substance must be infinite for nothing else can limit it. This One Substance refers to "God", which is made clear in Proposition 11. God 's ultimate essence must contain all other attributes and can influence modes in the material world. This Original Substance is infinite and everything that exists is in God 's
...es me, “God should have endowed me with this idea, so that it would be like the mark of the craftsman impressed upon his work” (Descartes 34, 51). Descartes says “the whole force of the argument rest on the fact that I recognize that it would be impossible for me to exist, being of such a nature as I am (namely, having in me the idea of God), unless God did in fact exist.” (Descartes 35, 52) My nature and my existence themselves prove the existence of God, therefore, Descartes says “the mere fact of my existing and of there being in me an idea of a most perfect being, that is God, demonstrates most evidently that God too exists.” (Descartes 34, 51)
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
Roger White presents an interesting argument for why God must exist. In his argument, White states that everything in the world is finely tuned to live its life accordingly. In order for this to be possible, God must have finely tuned all beings so that they were well fit for life. In depth, this argument is, “If a fact stands in need of an explanation, and a hypothesis explains this fact better than anything else, then they support each other. Our universe being so perfect for life is a fact in need of explanation. The hypothesis that God has finely tuned everything to be where all living beings can exist in this universe is an explanation to this fact. No other hypothesis compares to such a standard as this one. Therefore, the fact that our
In the argument in the second Scholium to Proposition 8, Spinoza makes two claims which have the following form: First, there is necessarily for each individual existent thing a definite cause that accounts for its existence. Second, the definite cause for the existence of a thing must either be contained in the very nature and definition of the existent thing - in which case, existence belongs to the nature of the thing defined - or must be postulated externally from its definition and nature. If, for example, in the universe five women were to exist, or any several individuals of a kind for this matter, then there must necessarily be a definite cause for the existence of each...
Throughout the “Meditations on First Philosophy” Descartes gives a couple of major arguments about the existences of god, he gives one argument in the third meditation and on in the fifth meditation. The argument in meditation three and the one we will focus on is known as the “Trademark Argument”. This argument comes from the fact claimed by Descartes that inside of everyone is a supreme being, which is placed there by whatever created us. From this statement Descartes can say that a mark from a God has been place inside of every one of us. This argument involves the acknowledgement of such an idea is within ourselves, this idea that God is a being who is eternal and infinite and a creator of all things. This is Descartes first premise. His second premise is the “Causal Adequacy Principle.” The p...
Spinoza cites the source of the misconception of freedom as man’s inability to understand himself and the causes of his actions. Spinoza expounds on this confusion, “So, experience itself, no less clearly than reason, teaches that men believe themselves free because they are conscious of their own, and ignorant of the causes by which they are determined, that the decisions of the mind are nothing but the appetites themselves, which therefore vary as the disposition of the body.”(p.157) Spinoza conceives decisions and determination to be the same thing, but considered under different lights. When being considered through the lens of thought, the idea is considered a decision; while through the light of extension, it is considered determination, an action caused by laws of motion and rest. Though considered differently, the source of both of these ideas are caused by the striving of the human will, and thus dependent on
... God alone remains; and, given the truth of the principle that whatever exists has a cause, it follows, Descartes declares, that God exists we must of necessity conclude from the fact alone that I exist, or that the idea of a supremely perfect – that is of God – is in me, that the proof of God’s existence is grounded in the highest evidence” Descartes concludes that God must be the cause of him, and that God innately implanted the idea of infinite perfection in him.
He concludes he did not create the idea of God. A finite being is incapable of creating an idea of an infinite possibility. Therefore, God must have created the idea already in him when he was created. Concluding that God exists. He also touches upon the idea in which he resolves that it cannot be a deceiver.
Aquinas' Arguments for the Existence of God In Summa Theologica, Question 2, Article 3, Aquinas attempts to prove the existence of God. He begins with two objections, which will not be addressed here, and continues on to state five arguments for the existence of God. I intend to show that Aquinas' first three arguments are unsound from a scientific standpoint, through support of the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. In the first and second arguments Aquinas begins by stating that some things change and that the changes to these things are caused by things other than themselves. He says that a thing can change only if it has a potentiality for being that into what it changes.
A wonderful description of the nature of God’s existence that includes the absolute possession of characteristics that have to be uniquely God was said, “First, God must exist necessarily, which means that God’s existence differs from ours by not being dependent on anything or anyone else, or such as to be taken from him or lost in any way. God has always existed, will always exist and could not do otherwise than to exist. Also, whatever attributes God possesses, he possesses necessarily” (Wood, J., 2010, p. 191).
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God The ontological argument is an a priori argument. The arguments attempt to prove God's existence from the meaning of the word God. The ontological argument was introduced by Anselm of Canterbury in his book Proslogion. Anselm's classical argument was based on two principals and the two most involved in this is St Anselm of Canterbury as previously mentioned and Rene Descartes.
An argument that's been going for as long as religion has existed is the existence of God. There are always people out there that want the believers to prove to the non-believers that God exists. Thomas Aquinas is the one to start the idea that the non-believers should be the ones trying to prove to the believers why there is no God. Making the non-believers take the action to research the proof that God doesn't exist. Professor Ralph McInerny mentioned in his article, that believers are tired of having to answer the same old questions and doing the research to show non-believers that God does exist (p.1). For once, let's have the atheist do the work to show the proof there is no God. The reasons why the atheist should be responsible for proving
He elaborated this to mean that a substance does not require a sense of anything else to exist, which also seem to coincide with Aristotle's interpretations of how a substance exists, that it is independent of all other things. (1). The fundamental feature of substance, as expressed by Spinoza, is its independence. Spinoza defines God as a substance that is completely unbounded, or a substance "comprising of infinity of attributes", of which every one of them illustrates an in... ...
It is my view that God exists, and I think that Aquinas’ first two ways presents a
The arguments are vast and wide spread. There are still many other philosophers out there who have weighed in on this problem who were not able to be covered in this paper. As you can now clearly see each of these three philosophers had a discourse between one another through their own works in which they tried to reconcile the issues that arose in the others. Interestingly all of these philosophers used God in quite different ways in order to make their argument fit their needs. They also all addressed the idea of substances in different ways, taking it to mean different things. Thus in conclusion neither Descartes, Spinoza, nor Leibniz have arguments that I agree on. Each one has its strong points and its weak points. By tweaking each argument I made them better fit my own understanding and beliefs.